In the traditional Scots-Irish families, back through the 1880s ,of which I personally heard the family stories passed down, all of the family members grieved about a babies born dead or which died a few days from birth. The family grave plots have the baby's little headstones on a little plot, complete with its name and dates of birth and death...many a few days apart. Death was a real enemy of the family, and they honored the loses. Being born alive on this planet earth was seen as a holy and precious privilege. They learned that from scripture reading and worship as Presbyterians.

After reading this, I was immediately taken aback. My mother-in-law, also suffered through a couple of miscarraiges, would never, for a second have considered doing this. I would have to agree that in this attempt to build a relationship with her son, she showed a great deal of emotional immaturity.

While quite creepy and something I would never do, I have to remind myself that people respond to death and loss in their own way and in their own time, and I try not to judge. Is this any weirder than having your loved one cremated and keeping a box filled with their charred flesh on your mantle? I think we live in such a sanitized 'out of sight out of mind' culture these days that we could stand with a few more reminders of death and our own mortality. This particular one is pretty damn creepy tho.

Wouldn't it be more respectful of life to give someone a proper a burial after they've died?

I'm stridently pro-life, and it seems creepy to keep a dead body around in a jar like that just to show it off.

How long did they keep the body? Did they bury it eventually, at least?

FWIW, something Bush 41 said during his run in '88 that gave me the impression the death of the little girl (they were going to name her, Robin) never was far removed from them, even 40 years later. For some people (and I say this from personal observation), letting go is this side of impossible.

PS There is a 'stiff upper lip', old pioneer 'tough it out' quality in some of those old WASP families that most people have, for good or ill, lost.

Way different world back then, in particular when it came to discussions of abortion and sex in general.

Still seems pretty weird to me. Can't imagine my Mom doing this.

Although, I'll say this, lotta pro-abortion (yes, not choice) people are very invested in the idea that the unborn are not quite human. Go take a look at any abortion discussion at Pandagon for a good example of this.

Background on the ExhibitCollected in the 1930s by Dr. Helen Button with help from local hospitals, Prenatal Development contains specimens from the difficult times of the Great Depression. To the best of our knowledge, all failed to survive because of accidents or natural causes. Dr. Button obtained the parents’ permission to use these specimens as teaching tools.

When a woman miscarries, the doctors like it if you can preserve the fetus and bring it to the hospital. This isn't for some sick, twisted reason, but to help understand why the miscarriage occurred.

(Another problem in miscarriage is that the woman may not fully deliver the placenta, thus the need for a D&C.)

In my wife's case, her miscarriage after birth #3 was due to an anembryonic gestation. We had two more children after that.

(I'm baffled as to how exposing children to the reality of life is now child abuse. Our first child was born premature and died shortly after birth. Had he been my youngest, would it have been child abuse for our living children to see his body?)

As rhhardin accurately points out, abortion is not an issue of whether or not the fetus is human, the issue is whether or not you care that the fetus is human. A large (but thankfully shrinking) minority of Americans does not care.

So this is pre the era of routine ultrasound? With that in mind, it makes sense. How else would you show someone that a fetus was a baby? Perhaps now, with other options, she would not have done the same thing.

Something is missing from this newspaper article. I haven't read the book but seems like the Daily Mail hasn't either. I've had a miscarriage at home at 5 weeks (too small to go in for a D & C). Was the Bush miscarriage also early? Or was it late term and she couldn't, for whatever reason, get to the hospital for a D & C. Miscarrying at home is a long, intense, bloody, physically and mentally draining process (none of the joy that follows of a live birth). Was George H. W. away on business during this time? Was George W. her only support at home during this grueling event? Probably not uncommon in the days before ultrasound for the mother to save the baby's remains so the doctor would know the uterus was completely evacuated, i.e. no infections to follow. We know of course that after an abortion the nurses have to reconstruct the baby to make sure they got it all. Speaking of infections following miscarriages, haven't we read in the Daily Mail about Lily Allen's miscarriage and subsequent blood poisoning. Was George curious, scared, frightened by all the screaming, moaning, crying from his mother? Did witnessing labor-like experience in the Age of the Waiting Room and Celebratory Cigar (long before the advent of father-friendly Birthing Suites) cause George the teenager to grow up fast? Did Mrs. B want to show him what it was all about? Do we know that they didn't bury the baby afterwards? Most miscarriages and stillborn babies in that era were incinerated in the hospital furnace. Does anyone on this thread besides Miss Ann (we've seen her breastfeeding and law books photo a bajillion times) have children?!

Barbara Bush is the most formidable former first lady since Abigail Adams. I dare any of the commentators in the thread above to rip her to her face. You wouldn't have the guts because you know damned well that she'd eviscerate you (probably both literally as well as figuratively).

When my three boys were aged 2, 4, and 6, my wife had a miscarriage in about the fourth month. My sons had already known that she was pregnant. It's their family, too, after all. When my wife miscarried, they (the oldest especially) wanted to know what happened. So we showed them the baby, which my wife had put in a jar, before we buried him/her in the backyard.

The oldest, at least, still remembers the baby, the jar, and the burial. It certainly hasn't scarred his psyche for life, or left some overwhelming cloud over the rest of our days. Death is an unavoidable part of life and family and relationships.

The only way we really even observe it now is at Christmas time, where we have a little stocking hanging with the others. It was my sons' idea, probably because the baby died just a couple of weeks before Christmas. So we have it, and we remember, but that's just how it is.

Odd is different than wrong. If there was hidden anger involved and Barbara Bush shoved the jar in George's face or exposed its contents to him without context or consent, then it's creepy story about Barbara'a dysfunction and inappropriate behavior.

Does is seem likely that Barbara experienced a miscarriage, cleaned herself up, gathered and jarred the evidence as directed, made arrangements with her teenage son for a ride to the hospital, and then surprised him with a look at the fetus without letting him in on any of the preceding events? It's my belief he was involved enough in the process for the whole experience to have a profound effect, beyond what his eyes saw in the jar.

@Paul Zrimsek...Yes on the gross out potential of those cross- sections. They were hard to look at, as they reminded me of the ham slices with the center bone that we used to have for supper. Same size, shape, color and look.